Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Spiffor]

I think Agathon's point in the opening post is sound.

Academia is about presenting theories, and then checking them with facts. This is the scientific method the whole academia agrees upon, and there has been so far no breakthrough (however, a whole field of science is dedicated on how to improve scientific research). I don't think the scientific method applies to philosophy, because I don't think philosophy considers itself a science.

Anybody who wants to use old ideological arguments in science is doomed to be very disappointed by the results. Conservative prejudices, much like leftist prejudices are doomed do scientific failure.

Now, conservatives are keen on conserving millenia-old dogma. They rely on a very rich folklore that accumulated over the time. Liberals do have their folklore, but it is much younger (there is quite a gap between Moses and Marx), and as such liberals are more prone to question it. Besides, most of the liberal folklore is a consequence of Enlightenment, and as such has values of rationality deeply ingrained: if a liberal dogma is proven wrong, many *will accept to learn from the failure - OTOH conservative/religious dogma has been proven bull****, or at least inconsistent for centuries, and yet you'll see "scientists" defending the most ludicrous of arguments, such as anti-evolutionism.

Academia is about the progress of science, about discovering new things, and about proving wrong past certitudes. Many conservatives will try to argue with arguments that have been proven wrong by newer research. These kind of guys will not fare well, and only those conservatives able to throw their wrong prejudices to the bin will satisfy the demands of the job.


*I know quite a few liberals will never accept to learn from their mistakes, even in Academia. But liberal folklore, being younger and putting more emphasis on rationality, will not know as many "defenders of the Word" as the conservatives.

[Ned]

Zylka, you got it. There is also and old saying about the liberals being pointy-headed as well. I suspect people get that way over time if they become too insular and intermarry only with others who think like they do.

Their inbreeding has also "neutered" the breed. Liberal men behave like women and liberal women like men. In truth, liberals have only one sex although some have beards and others appear to have breasts.

[Ned]

Spiffor, I take it from your post that only religious people can be conservatives.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Ned
Zylka, you got it. There is also and old saying about the liberals being pointy-headed as well.

That actually has to a considerable extent been confirmed, but I'm going to have to drop out of support for the rather stunning "inbreeding" idea(s)

To keep on side with status quo: it's NOT to say that the pointy headed population doesn't have significant role in the institution. The fact that liberal minds are more swamping in broader entry/mid level stages of post secondary re-affirms their role as prepping tool for the serious student - general intent being that those who go on to making our world work don't become narrow in thinking, themselves. It's a sort of rounding with additional (although incredible) benefits - of which no single one of us could hope to in brief explain.

Yet to try... it's essentially an arrived educational system of societal demand. This system first ensures that the larger populations of centrist/left thinkers are occupied and somewhat weeded (all the while slightly gaining in societal benefit); while the smaller populations of generally conservative achievers move on to fill limited and incredibly valued positions (all the while slightly gaining in how to deal with the former populace; who are always a considerable reality)

This of course is in application to the broadest and most respected genre of post secondary. These University/Colleges have a LOT of unique facades to their specific operation, and it’s really quite adorable to watch the masses buzzing about in a united yet divided “I’m educated” air. As always - there are exceptions regarding all - in which common sense should be used to identify holistic role. In the end, it’s all about providing for society’s advanced needs: while keeping the WHOLE population from swelling into an *over*-functioning, emotionless and terrifying technocracy.

~

And Spiff, honestly – try reality. The Dogmaesque population you’re dreaming into this argument is exception upon which the aforementioned common sense obviously isn’t being used. You want the real faces of the “conservative” stream? Around here; try the likes of DanS, Ming, Asher, Imran, etc. We’re not talking religious based peas of a pod – to say the least.

[Zylka]

Reading over that - a slip in description. The body doesn't have specific functions to "keep x from happening". They rather by evolution develop from minute failures themselves.

The body of post secondary is the way it is because positions of "importance" are obviously limited in this world - and natural (yet minute) overexpansion constantly finds itself failure with higher levels of screening as resultant. A conscious and near cohercive societal effort would truly be needed to advance to a broad and wasteful Econ/Techno early described. At current!

[Zylka]

one more Poly face

Oh - and whether or not he agrees by vote; MtG is just another freaking conservative filling out a dictating position. Apparently this resident exception was also too cool for school!

[JohnT]

Around here; try the likes of DanS, Ming, Asher, Imran, etc.

Hey!

[SpencerH]

Unlike Strangelove, I've found that most of my collegues, who've been in academia their entire adult lives, are much more liberal (some rabidly so) than I.

[The Mad Viking]

Two-headed thread...

wrt Conservatism- I like Agathon's take, and have added a new oxymoron to my fave list:

Military Intelligence
Government Worker

and now

Conservative Thought



Conservatism, by definitition, seeks to defend the status quo. It deems the status quo to be superior and change to be an attack, a destruction, a negative.

They simply cannot afford honest intellectual thought, because that might lead to the conclusion that the status quo must be changed; at which point they could no longer be conservative. So they engage in rhetoric, the appearance of logic, rearranged in backward fashion to support a conclusion that has already been reached.

Second head of thread - free will

All you science types who don't believe in free will - are hereby sentenced to Beyond Freedom and Dignity, wherein you can join B.F. Skinner in hell.

[Ramo]

Because a rock doesn't make a choice to fall to the ground.

I don't make a "choice" to do anything. Physical law dictates it for me. Just like for the rock. You've admitted the that the choice for humans is purely the function of an algorithm. If humans have free will, any algorithmic function makes choices.

False. Very, very false. There is a qualitative difference between your mind and that of an ant (or a computer), and that is that your mind is self-aware. I obviously know that I am self-aware.

Once again you entirely missed my point (you're incapable of even getting a stupid point, eh? ). And I already said, humans are smarter than ants and computers (which is why we're self-aware and them not). That doesn't give us any more free will than them. Again, given an initial condition in the brain, its future state is entirely determined by the brain's algorithm. No different from ants or computers. If all you need is an algorithm to have free will, anything with an algorithm has free will. You haven't demonstrated why self-awareness is relevant.

And this lower intelligence means what? Equal free will or less?

Equal. Intelligence has no bearing on free will.

Your argument assumes a deterministic world

No. The world is probabilistic, and in no way did I assume determinism in my proof. Probabilistic worlds are bounded by physical laws just as deterministic worlds are.

And wouldn't that make religion a determined behavior?

Depends on what you mean? If you mean that the state of the brain (and therefore religion) is entirely dictated by physical laws, yes.

Your argument assumes a deterministic world and that requires us to believe there are murder genes and genes for every other "chosen" behavior. And wouldn't that make religion a determined behavior? Is there a religion gene too? Self-defense seems to be one of our more deterministic behaviors - self-interest/survival - yet there are people who not only won't defend themselves but will take their own lives. Are there "recessive" genes for that too?

If molesting little children is driven by a gene - determined (at birth) - how can we express moral outrage at pedophiles since their behavior was determined making our outrage illogical and their behavior inevitable? And what about the would-be pedophile who refrains from that behavior out of a sense of right and wrong? Is there a gene for right and wrong too? If so, doesn't that mean there is also a morality gene? Is there a (civil) rights gene? How about a communist or democracy gene?

I don't know what genes have to do with this. I didn't say that all you need is one's genetic code to predict one's behavior. However, if you have all physical information about one's brain, (with the proper resources) it should be possibly to make predictions on its future state.

As for whether one can or cannot make moral judgements on others, I don't see why not. My morality isn't contingent upon free will.

Even though their behavior and "instincts" are %100 driven by programming? If ours were many (if any) suicides would not occur.

I've been using the terms algorithm and code to refer to the functions of the brain, not merely the genes. So, no.

[The Mad Viking]

Ramo:

As for whether one can or cannot make moral judgements on others, I don't see why not. My morality isn't contingent upon free will.

Morality is irrelevant without freewill.

There is no good or evil, and there is no choice in what actions we take.

Without freewill, there is no meaning. None.

Don't bother responding. It won't change anything.

[Ramo]

Why's that? Morality is the judgement of social interactions as good or bad. The lack of true choice doesn't contradict these judgements in any way.

[yavoon]

free will is one of those things I think is necessary to assume. while not necessarily true. to not assume free will puts u into a pretty useless place.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Morality is irrelevant without freewill.

Not quite. The necessity to agree on some behaviors remains, if we are to live in society.

There is no good or evil, and there is no choice in what actions we take.

There is a choice, but that choice is a function of a very complex algorythm. That we could only have made decision X doesn't mean we didn't actually make a decision.

Without freewill, there is no meaning. None.

With or without free will, that doesn't change much about the absurdity of life.

Don't bother responding. It won't change anything.

Then don't post.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why's that? Morality is the judgement of social interactions as good or bad. The lack of true choice doesn't contradict these judgements in any way.

u have no choice in the judgement u make either tho. the judgement u make is as predetermined as any of ur other choices/emotions/feelings.